Where are the dissenters?
In a recent New York Times article, the author notes that there was at one time significant resistance to government involvement in early childhood:
In 1971, President Richard M. Nixon vetoed a bill that would have underwritten child care for everyone, arguing that the bill “would commit the vast moral authority of the national government to the side of communal approaches to child rearing over against the family-centered approach.”According to the Times, that resistance is now diminishing for government child care and education programs.
Are there other alternatives?
It seems that for many policy-makers there is a simple dilemma with two alternatives: (1) government programs [and corresponding responsibility] for early childhood education, or (2) government inaction, which results in the continued trend of children unprepared for school. Yet a fair minded person must ask: Are these the only alternatives? Are there alternatives that would satisfy President Nixon's concerns about shifting the responsibility for rearing children from the family to the government? Could there be a family-centered approach that is consistent with the overwhelming research on the importance of early education?
Why not parents?
What would be the risks of a family-centered approach to early childhood education? Is it the lack of parent education? What if the resources currently invested in programs for children were invested in programs that enabled parents to support their children? What might be the results if parents were equipped to care for their own children? Might it not build a stronger relationship between home and school?
In a time where there is much talk about increasing funding for early childhood programs, it is wise to ask if the assumptions of those making the decisions are in fact valid.
